'Designed by men...for men'

Okay, he's not the first person ever to say it and he is plugging his book, but it's well put.

Well, how we do it (just as in DP and I) is that we both work for companies which have a degree of flexibility. He has flexible hours so can start early and finish early, I am a teacher and just take classes around the time that I need to be there for DS, which is actually only a 2.5 hour period of the day that we don't have covered. He attends state-subsidised childcare/education which we pay for but a far lower amount than we would pay in the UK (we are in Germany) and the drop-off and pick-up times are flexible. When I get a car as well, that 2.5 hour "black spot" that we have will be covered if I have any classes near DH's work, because I can take DS to him, drop him off for an hour or an hour and a half and come and pick him up afterwards. Because of DP's flexible work he would be able to just finish an hour later.

The things that allow us to do this - working and living very close together, the state-subsidised childcare being easily available, at least one of us having a job which can be split into "chunks" of time, the flexibility which allows him to chop and change hours. And the big one - both of us being not only willing but happy and dedicated to this. We accept the inconvenience because it allows DS time at home, and it allows us BOTH to work which to us is worth it, rather than one person taking the hit so that the other could work.

For all of us, it is perfect, because DS is home for half the day regardless, we both get to go to work which we enjoy and is fulfilling alongside our home stuff, it's not horrendously destructive like it was when (in the UK) we worked opposing shifts, him nights, me days, and never got any time together (not to mention DS being in childcare for 8-10 hours at a time)

I appreciate that not all industries could accommodate working hours like this, but my gut feeling is that a lot could but don't bother, because they don't have any problem finding workers who do the hours that they have set. And of course it might cost them more in resources, heating an office for longer hours with fewer people in for example.

There was a good guest blog a few days ago saying "Men don't do childcare because they don't want to." Written by a man, saying everything that feminists have been saying about childcare for decades. It was good. I'll see if I can find the link.

Maybe prams. A lot more design seems to go into buggies now men use them more. Including the skateboard buggy I saw earlier today. Prams need to be FUN now! McLaren prams. How did McLaren suddenly get interested in prams.

Maybe this is a sort of backwards example of what you are thinking of.

Flexible working, shorter hours, cheaper childcare (subsidised so the child carers themselves had decent wages and conditions too) would be great, but who pays?

Sashh the police thing is and such a shame. I hadn't heard that before. It actually makes me wonder if it would be worthwhile to set up a separate women's force, with female officers being able to join either the normal force or the women's force, which caters for issues like VAW, rape and prostitution, ie, issues which affect women directly and as a result of sexism.

I don't wish to imply that men can't deal with these issues, of course, but women might feel more willing to come forward if they knew they would be faced with an all-female team.

I saw this post recently, "it's a man's phone"

medium.com/technology-and-society/a26c6bee1b69

Wheel nuts:

Get a spanner with an extending handle - this makes all the difference; I know one or two men who like it. The ones provided in a "spare wheel kit" are often useless.

Well, this might fit. Google "women of steel". Decades after the war, there is still no public commemoration of the efforts of the women of Sheffield to keep industry going.

There are stacks and stacks of tributes, statues, benches etc to the men of the industry.

Public spaces, by men, for men, commemorating men.

NotGood - when I started driving, in the 80s, small cars were generally OK but large cars were designed for large people. I had one for a while where I was peering through an arc between the top of the dash and the upper curve of the steering wheel - if I'd sat on cushions I couldn't have reached the pedals. That's an area which has definitely improved vastly.

Lurcio - I work in software, and a long time ago we had a project management course which said about how 'crunch mode' should only be used for very short term crises because for anything else its counter-productive - a few companies do take this sort of thing on board (and they let me work part time from home, and note that I still manage to produce as much as many full timers or did before MN) - software is the sort of thing where its too easy for people to work insanely in dark holes with pizza, but also easier than other industries to adapt to work sensibly.

Not so sure about cars - my dad, who died 20 years ago, was 6ft and had to rule out a lot of cars as the driving space was too small for him to sit comfortably.

Agree on toilets - equal space for men and women results in long queues at the women's. All women know this! Probably the men know too but don't care...

Anything labelled as 'unisex' is basically designed for men, and they don't see any reason to make a separate one for women. This is not as bad as it used to be mind you. 20 years ago I tried to buy a waterproof goretex walking jacket - there were only 2 women's designs available, which I didn't like, and the many 'unisex' designs that the sales staff steered me towards were obviously made for gorillas men with low waists and long arms.

Another time DH and I wanted to hire bikes. They only had men's, parading as 'unisex', because after all why shouldn't men and women use the same bikes... After a couple of hours on a man's saddle my non-unisex nether regions were none too pleased.

Steel-capped work boots. My archaeologist friend had to have them on site, they don't come in a size 3. I think she wore 4s with lots of socks.

Car park ticket machines and toll booths. My arms are never long enough to reach the ticket. Final salary pension schemes which assume a linear career progression.

Baby changing facilities up/down a flight of stairs. With no toilet facility, and no way to get a pram in the usual cubicle.

Late night votes in Parliament.
In many countries: the law!
Here: unequal maternity and paternity leave periods, which makes women the dodgier bet in some employers' eyes.
Too few toilets for women in public buildings.
Ridiculously heavy doors.
My tin opener.
The nuclear family? Realised all the drawbacks when I had children and no extended family support nearby, but corporations get a nice flexible workforce. And the majority of corporations are run by men.

YY to bus shelter seats. Our local ones were actually removed and replaced (at vast cost to the taxpayer, if I remember correctly) because they were designed by youngish men for youngish men and thus too high and too sloping, so not very suitable for the majority of elderly people, mothers with small children, etc, who used the bus system on a daily basis.

Could they not have thought about this before spending hundreds of thousands putting them all in??

Ooh velvetstrider, gardening gloves as well.

Try getting really tough, thorn-proof gardening gloves in a really small size. I've been trying for over a decade and I can't find any.

Kitchens are an obvious one. In older ordinary houses built when only men designed houses and only women used the kitchen, the kitchens are tiny while the sitting rooms are as big as possible. Now that more men see the value of a large kitchen and more women design houses a spacious kitchen is (sensibly) seen as much more important. In the past men's space to relax after a hard day's work was prioritised over women's need for a space they could work in. They were expected to do all the housework without adequate accommodation for it.

The wheel nuts one is a really interesting example! After all, you can't undo the nuts with your fingers, so you need a tool which exerts a certain amount of leverage to get the job done. So why (given that you have to have a tool at all) make it such that the leverage required can be applied by a man and not by a woman? (Personally I find wheel nuts ok - but the bloody stopcock under my sink? Forget it!)

Oh, another....industrial rubber gloves. They seem to come in large, extra large and ginormous.

Marigolds, on the other hand, they come in women's sizes. Oh yes .

This is a fascinating piece I was pointed at (on a work course on software engineering): Why crunch mode doesn't work. It's pretty clear from this that presenteeism isn't about higher productivity. So it must be about something different. And I think it's about being asked to demonstrate loyalty to the firm above all other considerations - relationship, family, friends, life outside work. It's a form of loyalty test, and one heavily skewed towards only being passed by men (important caveat - a lot of men are realising the patriarchy screws them on this one too: I'm lucky enough to work somewhere that's very good about supporting part time work, and I have a lot of male colleagues who work shorter hours, either for family reasons or for better work-life balance).

And I'd like to see the evidence that 40 hours is the best for the economy (it happens to be the maximum, as far as the evidence from management studies suggests according to that link, you can get someone to work routinely before their performance drops off due to overwork and longer hours become counter-productive). My dad always mentions the fact that during the 70s when a lot of firms went down to 3 day weeks, productivity went up according to measurable stats. Certainly, a lot of managers in my workplace say they actually get more work for their money out of the part-timers.

Wheel nuts. I'm perfectly capable of changing a tyre. I know how to do it, in theory. I can jack the car up, but then I become stuck. Several times I've found myself jumping up and down on the wrench, my 9 7 stone mass not being robust enough to shift the buggering nut! Then along comes a relatively weedy looking man and pop - the nut is released. Grrrrrrr... why do they not develop a system that allows tyres to be easily changed by female drivers. If I break down in the middle of nowhere I'm screwed!

The real trouble with work hours is the pay - an average 30 hour week would mean average wages fall by 25% - can people afford the pay cut?

"Shelves of Patriarchy" made me .

Basically anything that women wear that's uncomfortable e.g corsets, heels etc so that they're considered 'attractive'.

I think that high-heeled shoes were/are designed by men - and only men 'benefit' from them. They are of no conceivable benefit to women, that's for sure, unless you count bunions, corns, hammer toes, calluses, back pain, knee strain, hip problems and sprained ankles as benefits!! No, they are men's invention, to keep women subdued and helpless, similar to the old Chinese tradition of foot-binding!!